When
you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined “The
worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” you don’t expect to
revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then on Tuesday the
final terms of theIranian
nuclear deal were
published. I was wrong.
Who would have
imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile
embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?
When
asked Wednesday at his news conference why there is nothing in the deal about
the American
hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is
a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.
Are conventional
weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means
non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?
Because Iran, joined
by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute,
calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for
a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they
scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly.
The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)
Obama claimed in his
news conference that it really doesn’t matter, because we can always intercept
Iranian arms shipments to, say, Hezbollah.
But wait. Obama has
insisted throughout that we are pursuing this Iranian diplomacy to avoid the
use of force, yet now blithely discards a previous diplomatic achievement — the
arms embargo — by suggesting, no matter, we can just shoot our way to
interdiction.
Moreover, the most
serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports — of sophisticated
Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are not going to attack
Russian and Chinese transports.
The net effect of
this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under
threat from Iran and its proxies, but also to endanger our own naval forces in
the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship
missiles would threaten our control over the gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,
waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.
The other major shock in the final
deal is what
happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final
agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any
undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on
which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran
sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take
24 days.
And what do you think
will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is
farcical.
The action now shifts
to Congress. The debate is being hailed as momentous. It is not. It’s
irrelevant.
Congress won’t get to
vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N.
Security Council for approval within days .
Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and
sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.
Meaning:
Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal
underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will
have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly
constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.
Even if Congress
rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians
will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while
the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.
Should Congress then
give up? No. Congress needs to act in order to rob this deal of, at least, its
domestic legitimacy. Rejection will make little difference on the ground. But
it will make it easier for a successor president to legitimately reconsider an
executive agreement (Obama dare not call it a treaty — it would be instantly
rejected by the Senate) that garnered such pathetically little backing in
either house of Congress.
It’s
a future hope, but amid dire circumstances. By then, Iran will be flush with
cash, legitimized as a normal international actor in good standing, recognized
(as Obama once said) as “a very successful regional power.” Stopping Iran from
going nuclear at that point will be infinitely more difficult and risky.
Which is Obama’s triumph. He has locked in his folly. He has laid down his
legacy, and we will have to live with the consequences for decades.